The Emerald Dawn wrote:Ratings have NOTHING to do with journalistic integrity.

Well millions of American news viewers must be total idiots, then, considering Fox is the most-watched news channel. And do you have any kind of proof of widespread lack of journalistic integrity besides "lol fox"?

The Emerald Dawn wrote:Ratings have NOTHING to do with journalistic integrity.

Well millions of American news viewers must be total idiots, then, considering Fox is the most-watched news channel. And do you have any kind of proof of widespread lack of journalistic integrity besides "lol fox"?

Most news channels are six feet deep in yellow journalism, in my opinion fox is just another brick in the wall, they just get hit harder than the other channels. I don't know why we don't get to pick on the missing plane channel (CNN) or liberal unpopular fox news with creepy eyed commentators (MSNBC). I'd imagine it's because fox news leans conservative. After all, it is part of Rupert Murdoch's mega news corp.

ENTP"I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.""Consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects."

Look if I misunderstood your question just explain it again and there can be a discussion. It is absolutely pointless to just say I didn't understand it and not explain how.

Here's the problem, slugger. I really only have two options as to how you could possibly been mislead by the question. The first is that you're being obtuse. Not uncommon but not really worthy of kid gloves or pretending isn't fucking tedious. Certainly not something that would jibe with a desire, no matter how stated, that the person is interested in anything resembling a constructive discourse. For this option, dismissal is the only option as anything else would be tedium.

You know, like dragging this bullshit out like it was super hard to understand or just couldn't be reread by anyone possessing the most basic of reading skills and understood.

The other option is that the person being dealt with does not possess basic reading skills. Again, the best course of action is to state clearly that it is not my job to catch you up with the rest of the class and dismiss any further missives as the gibbering of someone lacking in the tools required for the conversation.

I have no reason to assume you're stupid as hell as you seem to be able to communicate in full sentences and as far as I know carry on conversations that would pass a Turing Test.

So...I'm left with the assumption you're being obtuse.

Which makes these theatrics about 'conversation' tedium.

You said...

The Sotoan Union wrote: This is happening and you can't pretend it isn't.

I asked "Who is pretending this isn't happening?"

See those bolded words? The ones that clearly indicate what part of the post the question was directed at? Of course you do. Did you answer that question? No you did not. You gave me some nonsense about being force to watch. What in the wide world of sports does that have to do with pretending these things aren't happening?

Fucking nothing. Not a damn sausage. But you said it. Why? We already established that you're not a goddamned idiot. Because that's the conversation you want to have. Because when you're actually confronted with the rhetoric about people 'pretending these things aren't happening' you're forced to admit that no one is pretending these things aren't happening and has fuck all to do with a decision to show it.

Atomic Energy wrote:I think the narrative is probably more like "Obama caused this"

And "he is a Muslim."

"Who we used to criticize for having a crazy Christian pastor."

"Don't forget they also have control of towns that are off-limits to Non-Muslims, like Birmingham."

Last edited by Gauthier on Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.

The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.

If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.

This site stresses me out, so I rarely come on here anymore. I'll try to be civil and respectful towards those I'm debating on here. If you don't extend the same courtesy then I'll probably just ignore you.

Nebalon wrote:Good, people need to know how disgusting the ISIS muslims can be

And to do that they must personally watch potentially traumatizing footage rather than just be told about what happened like other news agencies?

"Being told" tends to not really register in peoples brains when talking about horrid things. After all, our entire society is based on "not thinking about it". From who makes our cellphones and clothes to how the animals in our burgers were treated - we are told it is not pretty, but merely being told is so easy to forget.

Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on. - Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

Gauthier wrote:>Argues setting up democracies in Middle East is wrong and dictatorships should be installed>Argues Saddam could have kept Iran in check>Misses how installing a dictatorship in Iran turned it into a theocracy today

Every country is different. There is no one strategy for all countries. They fucked up in removing the government in Iran, and mind you the Khoemeinists in Iran weren't alone in their fight against the Shah there were many others too. So it didn't just breed 100% Islamist radicalists.

Nebalon wrote:Good, people need to know how disgusting the ISIS muslims can be

And to do that they must personally watch potentially traumatizing footage rather than just be told about what happened like other news agencies?

Hence why we don't publish Holocaust photos and just tell people what happened.You know, because doing otherwise would be potentially traumatizing.

Besides that particular clusterfuck of shitty argument, no expression that people 'must' watch this was used. Fox didn't even broadcast it on their television network, but published the video on the Internet, where interested parties would have to deliberately search it out (and be warned by a 'Graphic images' warning at the beginning).

Though yes, it does seem to sound like Nebalon thought such was a positive thing for people to do.I'd agree with him.And disagreement decidedly shouldn't be based in the above batshit crazy argument that somehow people must be spared from any potentially graphic images because...sensitivity. That's fucking ridiculous.

Threlizdun wrote:And to do that they must personally watch potentially traumatizing footage rather than just be told about what happened like other news agencies?

"Being told" tends to not really register in peoples brains when talking about horrid things. After all, our entire society is based on "not thinking about it". From who makes our cellphones and clothes to how the animals in our burgers were treated - we are told it is not pretty, but merely being told is so easy to forget.

Yes, but would a better solution not then be to say "go to our website to see actual footage of what they are doing" rather than airing it with the possibility of people who legitimately could suffer psychological damage by seeing such atrocities carried out seeing it when they didn't intend to? There is a reason trigger warnings have become popular online, and the possibility of seeing a man burned alive is a damned good reason for one.

Last edited by Threlizdun on Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This site stresses me out, so I rarely come on here anymore. I'll try to be civil and respectful towards those I'm debating on here. If you don't extend the same courtesy then I'll probably just ignore you.

The Alma Mater wrote:"Being told" tends to not really register in peoples brains when talking about horrid things. After all, our entire society is based on "not thinking about it". From who makes our cellphones and clothes to how the animals in our burgers were treated - we are told it is not pretty, but merely being told is so easy to forget.

Yes, but would a better solution not then be to say "go to our website to see actual footage of what they are doing" rather than airing it with the possibility of people who legitimately could suffer psychological damage by seeing such atrocities carried out seeing it when they didn't intend to?

The Alma Mater wrote:"Being told" tends to not really register in peoples brains when talking about horrid things. After all, our entire society is based on "not thinking about it". From who makes our cellphones and clothes to how the animals in our burgers were treated - we are told it is not pretty, but merely being told is so easy to forget.

Yes, but would a better solution not then be to say "go to our website to see actual footage of what they are doing" rather than airing it with the possibility of people who legitimately could suffer psychological damage by seeing such atrocities carried out seeing it when they didn't intend to?

Threlizdun wrote:Yes, but would a better solution not then be to say "go to our website to see actual footage of what they are doing" rather than airing it with the possibility of people who legitimately could suffer psychological damage by seeing such atrocities carried out seeing it when they didn't intend to?

That's exactly what they did.

Well shit, I misread the article. I saw that they had stated on tv that people needed to see this, but missed that it was then posted online. I have no problems with this then. Sorry about that screw up on my part.

This site stresses me out, so I rarely come on here anymore. I'll try to be civil and respectful towards those I'm debating on here. If you don't extend the same courtesy then I'll probably just ignore you.